(Untitled)

Jun 21, 2005 02:48

Coming. . . hopefully tomorrow ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 7

liminalliz June 20 2005, 18:40:18 UTC
1. Sushi for breakfast? OH YUM.

2. Ahaha! Something I can answer--- Dumbledore is not evil, and I strongly believe that he isn't evil and won't turn evil -- however he is using Harry rather dreadfully and not telling him stuff that Harry should know because he wants to protect him. Dumbledore is a flawed character who is extremely, freakishly powerful and knows & controls a whole lot more than he lets on. To compare him to Gandalf is a very good comparision (yes, JK does rip everyone's ideas) as you know that Gandalf is tempted by the one ring and could be a very terrible wizard if he turned. So could Dumbledore. But he's very stable, I think, and despite his huge powers and huge knowledge base, he doesn't *want* to take over -- he just wants to run his school, have happy little children at Hogwarts, have a good solid government ruling over him and have Voldemort out of the picture. Unfortunately.... he's not allowed to run his school the way he likes, his children are not happy, the government sucks, and Voldemort is very much a ( ... )

Reply


sangria_lila June 21 2005, 03:06:21 UTC
How about, Dumbledore is a stupid ponce and the Harry Potter books lack imagination to the nth degree?

Reply

my_rain_face June 21 2005, 16:00:07 UTC
Eh, I disagree on both points. I definitely don't fall into the school of OH MY GOD THESE ARE THE BEST KIDS BOOKS EVER WRITTEN but that one, at least, was definitely creative, entertaining and (barring a few irritating flaws) generally well-written. Have you read any of them yourself?

Reply

sangria_lila June 22 2005, 05:54:44 UTC
Indeed I have. Everything up to book four. Then I thought book four was stretching itself WAY beyond its limits, and stopped. Book Three was the best. I think it lacks imagination compared to all the other stuff I've read and therefore uncreative. I'm more pissed off at the commercialization than anything. if it was oh i'm a iffy nice little book sitting in a bookstore instead of I'M A MEGLOMANIAC BOOK MONOPOLY AND JK EFFING ROWLING IS RICHER THN THE QUEEN, I'd have no quarrel with it.

Reply


yesisaworld June 21 2005, 09:59:32 UTC
Dumbledore can't be evil. There are no evil bumblebees. Anyway, what Liz said - dude's got a few sore points (as in, 'twas his fault for leaving it till the last moment to let Harry in on some of teh bigger, badder secrets for (1) wanting to protect Harry from the evilllnesss of the world for as long as possible, and for (2) wanting to protect Harry from the evilllnesss of the world for as long as possible. Which shouldn't be at all for too long, seeing as how the boy's TARGET FOR MURDER, and should learn to PREPARE. : takes on Moody-esqe voice: "CONSTANT VIGILANCE.")

Plus, if Dumbledore was in with the Dark Lord, he'd have killed Snape off from the beginning. It's what Evil Lords do.

Woot, sushi breakfast! :D

Reply


codar June 22 2005, 19:20:31 UTC
i'd have to concur with the ladies whom i don't know. logistically, dumbledore being evil doesn't make sense. he could have killed harry at any given time of any given day. and why would he prepare harry for fighting him? he's just an old and wizened wizard that isn't too wise. so what moral lesson do we learn from dumbledore? protecting innocence is for chumps. humans are not innocent beings and the idea of socially protecting children should be tossed the way of the dinosaur. or maybe i've just written too many analytical/persuasive papers.

Reply

my_rain_face June 23 2005, 01:49:11 UTC
The answer to your questions is: because he's raising a worthy opponent, or because he has some alternate purpose for keeping him alive.

At any rate, I've been swayed by what I've heard about the 5th book. I suppose we'll see.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up